December 5th, 2009.

Government has refused to provide any explanation or information with respect to those persons against whom Prime Minister Patrick Manning exercised his veto, blocking their proposed appointments.

Attorney General John Jeremie, in providing reasons for Government’s decision yesterday, told Parliament that ’unwarranted intrusions into these processes carry with them the potential to destabilise and to undermine the decision-making process’.

He also stated the privacy rights of people were involved, and that Government did not have the permission of the persons involved to reveal their names and identities.

’This is not to say that there will never be cases in which such intrusions are acceptable.

It is only to say that this is not considered to be one of those cases,’ Jeremie said.

Jeremie was responding to questions filed on the Order Paper by Caroni MP Dr Hamza Rafeeq.

Rafeeq had asked the number of times Prime Minister Patrick Manning had vetoed appointments recommended by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission for the positions of solicitor general, chief parliamentary counsel and Director of Public Prosecutions, as well as the names of the persons to whom the prime minister objected and the reasons for his objection in each case.

Jeremie said the exercise of the veto in Trinidad and Tobago was an integral part of the internal decision-making process.

Quoting Section 11 (2) of the Constitution, which provides that before the JLSC makes any appointment to the offices of SG, CPC, DPP among others, it shall consult with the prime minister, the attorney general stated it was ’important to guard against the erosion of the confidentiality which ought to attend these internal decision-making processes’.

He said the individual applicants for these posts were not beneficiaries of public resources but were simply applicants for positions in the public service.

He said the questions asked ’involves the disclosure of information that was personal’.

’They (the persons) are entitled to the full privacy rights set out in the Constitution.

To reveal...the personal details of applicants...is to do them a grave disservice,’ he said, adding: ’The executive ought not to override the rights of these individuals with respect for their private life as set out in Section 4 of the Constitution.’

In that, he said, the executive, as the potential employer of these applicants, ought not unilaterally to disclose their names and identities ’without the express consent being given by these persons in advance to such public disclosure, especially in circumstances where the applicants have not, in fact, been appointed.

Such permission has not been given in this case’.

However, Jeremie did respond to the queries on the dates that these posts became vacant.

Rafeeq asked Jeremie whether he was aware if any person was vetoed.

Jeremie said he only became aware through the newspapers-if one is to believe what is in the media, he added.

Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma asked whether the information was available through the Freedom of Information Act, but House Speaker Barry Sinanan told Jeremie he did not have to answer that question.